Is ERE the ultimate blue-pill?

[jonnyz]

All of you have a sound knowledge of financial systems, at least more than a lay person. Haven't you thought about going moneyless? Why aren't more of you doing it? Isn't it turning Plato's cave into Plato's rave? Why cling to the last link in the chain? Why not just completely let go, and let those self-sufficient skills look after you, outside of all this injustice and disgrace of the money machine? I understand going moneyless isn't practical for older people and people with dependants.

Can't help but feel I'm hitting above my weight here, but I can't be the only one here who has thought about this.

[Lemon]

Some things the market produces are pretty much cash only, insurance, healthcare, legal advice. Others are vastly easier to get someone else to do for you such as building a bike from raw materials, or, tins of tomatoes.

Money isn't inherently evil, Not everyone needs to be Mark Boyle

[jonnyz]

Money is illusion. Illusion is neither good nor evil. Attachment to illusion is evil. Attachment to illusion is called idolatry.

--Daniel Suelo

[Lemon]

Thats all well and good but try and persuade the pharmacist to give you your levothyroxine without handing over the pretty bits of paper.
You sort of answered this in your first post with respect to excluding people who are old or dependents.

It generally pays to at least pay lip service to how most people live and makes your life easier.

[daylen]

Money is necessary to promote individuality. Otherwise peoples opinions would merge and diversity would decrease. This is unstable, I believe.

[Seppia]

Money is illusion. Illusion is neither good nor evil. Attachment to illusion is evil. Attachment to illusion is called idolatry.

--Daniel Suelo

Money isn't an illusion, it's the most efficient simplifier of transactions humanity has came up with.

It would be great in theory to exchange fresh eggs against a prostate visit, but I can only take so many prostrate checks in my life, so I'd rather get money from the doctor in exchange for my eggs.

[jonnyz]

It depends on your relationship with personal things like health, wealth, and wellbeing-- basically what you value in life.

Daylen, I haven't a clue what you're saying. Could you rephrase?

I think I started this thread in a clickbate-y way. Sorry. I am wondering if any other forum members have considered going the Suelo/Mark Boyle route.

[daylen]

There needs to be a systemic way to promote competition at the individual level. If there is no incentive for people to reflect on their own thought processes, then eventually people will not think for themselves.

This isn't stable.

Eventually thought would become homogeneous and society might not be able to correct itself when it encounters unforeseen consequences.

[daylen]

I understand, and this is why I am trying to explain. I want to communicate my ideas so that I can humiliate myself. This is the best place to do this I think. Otherwise I would just live in my head. I am working on enjoying more things so that I can distract myself from complex thought. For instance, I find that dance and writing stories is actually quite enjoyable. Over time these activities will start to take up more of my time.

EDIT: Ignore the logic here. I was thinking that Suelo was a different person and you were talking to me.

[Fish]

I'd reframe the question as: which economic system do I prefer to participate in?

I understand the "money is an illusion" argument and even accept it to some extent. There is an even more general perspective that encompasses this, i.e. "money is a narrative" a la that Seth Godin quote that I've dropped several times before. Humans ascribe meaning and value to things. It is a choice.

Many (perhaps even most?) humans in this world never get to view it as a choice. Is that tragic and unfair? Maybe. But I have that choice and I've cast my vote to remain in the global economic system. I think of it as an intelligent, self-interested decision... not in the least mindless or coerced.

The option to go moneyless only exists when a person's non-financial forms of human capital is commensurate with their needs and wants. This means being economically independent (in the absence of a generous natural environment or a gift economy of abundance). ERE can be used to achieve this, if it is your goal. But I do not think going moneyless is the pinnacle of ERE, or the next Wheaton level up from systems-thinking on the ERE Wheaton scale.

Why not use markets and the economic system as a tool to help accomplish your goals? You don't have to depend on it if you don't want to. Just use it to the extent that it makes sense. To me, moneyless living seems like idealistic Cipolla-stupid behavior (we all lose). But you can decide that for yourself.

[jonnyz]

Daylen,

I don't need an incentive to reflect over my own thought processes. In fact, this is a hobby of mine, a fairly empowering one at that.
"I want to communicate my ideas so I can humiliate myself." Well said.
What's wrong with living in one's own world? I recommend The Book of Disquiet by Fernando Pessoa; the introverts guide book.

ffj,

People like Suelo are the ultimate adapters. He was going to be an ascetic in India, but attended a lecture by the Dali Lama who said something along the lines of "you don't need to leave your home to be an ascetic, better to show your people what it's all about"
"But when they start preaching I feel they fail to see the larger picture." Agreed. This kind of l thing isn't political activism. Goes way deeper than that.
With or without money, we all have a simbiotic relationship with something.

[daylen]

I am not trying to attack anyone. I am trying to humiliate myself, for myself.

EDIT: I just now realized that I misunderstood ffj. I apologize. Sometimes I jump ahead.

[IlliniDave]

I don't because I don't want to (go 100% self-sufficient). Money is a like a Swiss Army Knife--a multitool that is useful for simplifying all sorts of mundane problems, and quite a few serious ones. Jacob talked about this recently, discussing a couple scenarios where money is the most expedient way to deal with them). One could also argue that cultivating and stewarding financial means is an act of self reliance.

[BRUTE]

brute loves money

[vexed87]

Daylen, I recommend you pick up a copy of Lean Logic (or its sister book) for a deeper look into the monetary economy vs the alternative of human reciprocity and exchange as a means of social organisation. Money is only one of many possible solutions to the problem of trading in a complex civilization. Only "simple" social structures can do away with money completely, as others have alluded to, if you give up money in totality, don't expect to be able to guarantee access to the products of a developed civilization. Waste products of industrial society will be easier to access than goods in high demand and short supply, which will always be hard to come by without the right connections. I think a great many lessons can be learned by efforts to live moneyless , which could accelerate a persons journey to FI. Money will be a necessary 'evil' so long as you want to remain part of our society, because you can't pay the tax man off with bartered goods or friendship.

[The_Bowme]

I don't find that approach attractive really.

Personally, I'm not sure what the point would be. Money is useful, regardless of the ontological status one attaches to it. It is an emergent social phenomenon that coordinates labor and resources across time and space, albeit imperfectly. At a system level, I don't believe you could eliminate money without drastically reducing the world's carrying capacity.

The benefits of money are available to you as an individual, and you can take it or leave it, but it's not clear to me why you would leave it. If you want to be ascetic, it's a question of your relationship to worldly goods, not money. If you beg for bread or for dollars to buy bread, I don't see the difference.

edit: also, wasn't it the red pill?

[daylen]

@vexed I have been working through Lean Logic for a while now. What did I miss? Currency is a useful tool if the individuals allow for slack by creating other systems to control it.

Yes, it is the red pill.

[vexed87]

Sorry @daylen, I confused you with OP, my post was directed @jonnyz.

As for what you are missing, probably nothing! Essential reading from Lean Logic, go to page XV and read all entries under question 6, and 8 for bonus points. Combined together, those entries pretty much explain the inevitability of simpler society, diminishing importance of money, and increasing importance of a lean and localised economy that simply won't require our massive markets and money for distribution of goods and services that humans currently assume is the only way to operate. That's not to say some forms of currency won't be used, but they'll simply hold much less importance in a localised economy.

Since industrialisation we have been moving from needs and wants supported by simple human recriprocation, to the industrial machine producing everything, with every need and want being catered to by the market economy. Lean logic explains how what was previously outsourced to a monetary economy will be brought back 'in-house'.

In a sense, moneyless manifesto and ERE go hand in hand, because even Mark Boyle recognises that not everyone can escape 'money', just like not everyone will become hairdressers and retire early, however everyone can benefit from the realisation that most needs are not needs at all, and many needs and wants can be met without earning or spending money. What the moneyless manifesto achieves is to challanges people's assumptions that money solves every problem.

[BRUTE]

not having read Lean Logic, is it possible that western "need-plus" economies have in effect subsidized the rise of massive amounts of third world economies out of poverty? brute read recently that since just 1990, the number of humans living in poverty has been reduced by 50%. this is probably in large parts due to the influx of capital from richer economies into poorer economies. it's hard to invest in a village in Asia or Africa from a localized economy.

[TopHatFox]

Money is illusion. Illusion is neither good nor evil. Attachment to illusion is evil. Attachment to illusion is called idolatry.

--Daniel Suelo

Money isn't an illusion, it's the most efficient simplifier of transactions humanity has came up with.

It would be great in theory to exchange fresh eggs against a prostate visit, but I can only take so many prostrate checks in my life, so I'd rather get money from the doctor in exchange for my eggs.

Money is not an illusion. It is a social system to organize resources. And at some point, a small group figured out they can get most of the group to work for them, while convincing them that if they work hard enough, they can be part of the small group too. Fascinating.

Bring part of the small group is useful to a degree. Having a healthy body, skill set, and social network is 10x more important.